DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "…the type of content data" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtright et al. (US 6,157,963), hereinafter referred to as Courtright in view of Blaine et al. (US 9,772,959), hereinafter referred to as Blaine and Hellwig et al. (US 7,373,445), hereinafter referred to as Hellwig.
Referring to claim 1, Courtright teaches, as claimed, a method for processing requests from at least one a requesting client, the method comprising, at a computing device: receiving from the at least one client, a plurality of requests (col. 4, line 55 and lines 65-66), the plurality of requests including multiple first requests (i.e.-high priority requests, col. 5, lines 13-16) and multiple second requests (i.e.-lower priority requests, col. 5, lines 28-29), each of the first and second requests comprising request data; assigning, based on the request data, a respective processing priority to each of the first and second requests (i.e.-each request are assigned and placed in a respective priority queue, col. 4, lines 57-63); processing the first requests based on the assigned processing priorities (i.e.-processing the I/O requests based on highest priority first, col. 5, 13-20), while the second requests remain pending for processing.
However, Courtright does not teach the step of: determining whether to adapt the processing priorities of the second requests based on one or more of the request data of the second requests and/or response data generated for the first requests, and including: timestamps indicating when the first and the second requests have been generated; and locations associated with the first and second requests; when the determination is affirmative, adapt the processing priorities of the second requests in accordance with one or more of the request data of the second requests and the response data generated for the first requests; and processing the second requests based on the adapted processing priorities.
On the other hand, Blaine discloses method and system for managing IO priorities, including the steps of: determining whether to adapt the processing priorities of requests (i.e.-determine to change priorities of previously dispatched original command, col. 4, lines 29-30); adapt the processing priorities of the second requests in accordance with the request data (i.e.-change the processing priorities of the original command to expedited command, col. 7, lines 17-18); and processing the second requests based on the adapted processing priorities (i.e.-processing the task in an expedited manner, col. 9, lines 5-13); including: timestamps indicating when the first and the second requests have been generated (see Blaine, col. 5, lines 64-67). Furthermore, Hellwig discloses method and apparatus for allocating access rights in mutimaster system, wherein access priorities are based on address locations of master devices associated with the access requests (col. 2, lines 34-40 and 51-54; col. 3, lines 52-57).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Courtright and incorporate the steps of: determining whether to adapt the processing priorities of the second requests based on the request data of the second requests and/or response data generated for the first requests; if the determination is affirmative, adapt the processing priorities of the second requests in accordance with the request data of the second requests and/or the response data generated for the first requests; processing the second requests based on the adapted processing priorities, as taught by Blaine and Hellwig. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable rescheduling of a previously dispatched IO request, thereby expediting completion of pending IO requests; and further to provide additional priority arbitration method based on the requesting master device address/location.
As to claim 2, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine and Hellwig teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request data comprise: one or more of senders, originators and recipients of the first and the second requests (see Hellwig, col. 1, lines 20-22); an indication of the type of content data being requested by the first and the second requests to be processed (see Blaine, col. 8, lines 47-50); an indication of a geographical region.
As to claim 4, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adapting the processing priorities is further based on: processing prior requests received at the computing device prior to the reception of the first and the second requests; timestamps at which the first and the second requests are received at the computing device (see Blaine, col. 5, lines 64-67).
As to claim 5, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determination whether to adapt the processing priorities is triggered by: a predefined first time period; a maximum number of the further requests received at the computing device over a predefined second time period (see Blaine, col. 4, lines 61-64).
As to claim 6, the modified Courtright teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing priorities are assigned by using a set of rules maintained at the computing device (see Courtright, col. 4, lines 55-58).
As to claim 7, the modified Courtright teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the processing priorities comprise a score generated by the set of rules (see Courtright, col. 6, lines 4-9).
As to claim 8, the modified Courtright innately teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the score comprises a numerical range (see Courtright, col. 6, lines 14-15).
As to claim 9, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the rules are adapted based on statistical data generated in response to processing the first and the second requests and to the processing of prior requests received prior to the reception of the first and the second requests (see Blaine, col. 6, lines 51-67).
As to claim 10, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine innately teaches the method of claim 9, wherein adapting the rules comprises one or more of activating and deactivating one or more rules of the set of rules (see Blaine, col. 9, lines 5-11).
As to claim 11, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein processing the second requests comprises a selection of at least one of one or more further computing devices for processing a subset of the second requests, the one or more further computing devices forming a distributed network with the computing device (see Blaine, fig. 3).
As to claim 15, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the rules are adapted based on statistical data generated in response to processing the first and the second requests and to the processing of prior requests received prior to the reception of the first and the second requests (see Blaine, col. 6, lines 51-67).
As to claim 16, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine innately teaches the method of claim 15, wherein adapting the rules comprises one or more of activating and deactivating one or more rules of the set of rules (see Blaine, col. 9, lines 5-11).
As to claim 17, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the rules are adapted based on statistical data generated in response to processing the first and the second requests and to the processing of prior requests received prior to the reception of the first and the second requests (see Blaine, col. 6, lines 51-67).
As to claim 18, the modified Courtright in view of Blaine innately teaches the method of claim 17, wherein adapting the rules comprises one or more of activating and deactivating one or more rules of the set of rules (see Blaine, col. 9, lines 5-11).
Referring to claim 12, the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, hence the rejection of claim 1 is applied accordingly.
Referring to claim 13, the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, hence the rejection of claim 1 is applied accordingly.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtright, Blaine and Hellwig, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US 7,478,179), hereinafter referred to as Moore.
As to claim 3, the modified Courtright teaches the claimed invention except the limitation of claim 3.
On the other hand, Moore discloses IO priority inheritance where first IO requests are executed based on priority, wherein the request data is included in a separate data structure associated with the first and second requests (see fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 1-10).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Courtright so that the request data is included in one or more of a message header in one or more data fields of the first and second requests and in a separate data structure associated with the first and second requests, as taught by Moore. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement the IO queue using any data structure that can maintain the order of IO requests.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto. gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184